Disposed¶17

Sevalal v. State of U.P. and Another

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – S.138

Allahabad HC18 Aug 2025NA528/9485/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court (2025:AHC:141232), Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 9485 of 2025, Sevalal v. State of U.P. and another — quashing of summoning order under S.138 NI Act refused; service of statutory demand notice (consignment RU56519640IN) held to be a matter of trial; recital of issuance sufficient at summoning stage; Ajeet Seeds Ltd. v. K. Gopala Krishnaiah (2014) 12 SCC 685 relied on; cheque No. 903800 for Rs. 5 lakhs dated 02.09.2022; Complaint Case No.613 of 2022, Kaushambi; liberty reserved to contest trial; S.139 NI Act presumption urged by State.

What did the court decide?

No interference with the summoning order; application disposed of with liberty to the applicant to raise legal and factual grounds while contesting the trial. ¶17

Sevalal Vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No interference with the summoning order; application disposed of with liberty to the applicant to raise legal and factual grounds while contesting the trial.

¶17

Issue for consideration

Whether the High Court should interfere under Section 528 BNSS with the summoning order dated 03.01.2025, in view of the applicant's contention that the statutory demand notice dated 20.09.2022 was never served (no online consignment details for consignment no. RU56519640IN).

¶12

Court's answer

Whether the statutory demand notice was actually served or not is a question of trial; at this stage it suffices that there is a clear recital regarding issuance of the statutory demand notice.

¶12

Ratio / Principle

In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Ajeet Seeds Ltd. Vs. K. Gopala Krishnaiah, (2014) 12 SCC 685 (service of notice being a matter of evidence and proof, and quashing at the stage of issuance of process being premature), judicial interference is declined and the application stands disposed of.

¶17

Key takeaways

It is left open to the applicant to raise legal and factual grounds while contesting the trial.ratio¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — S.138 — quashing application under S.528 BNSS against summoning order dated 03.01.2025 in Complaint Case No.613 of 2022 (Dharm Singh Patel Vs. Sevalal), Additional Civil Judge Junior Division II/Judicial Magistrate, Kaushambi — contention that statutory demand notice dated 20.09.2022 (consignment no. RU56519640IN) was never served and no online consignment details furnished — HELD: whether the demand notice was actually served is a question of trial; a clear recital regarding issuance of the statutory demand notice suffices at this stage — relying on Ajeet Seeds Ltd. Vs. K. Gopala Krishnaiah, (2014) 12 SCC 685 (paras 10-11: presumption of service under S.114 Evidence Act and S.27 GC Act; service a matter of evidence; premature to quash at stage of issuance of process) — interference declined; application disposed of; applicant left open to raise legal and factual grounds at trial (Vikas Budhwar, J.; Order dated 19.8.2025).

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:141232

¶2

Court No. - 75

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 9485 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Sevalal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sandeep Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Sandeep Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.

¶7

This application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed by the applicant to quash the impugned summoning order dated 03.01.2025 passed by Additional Civil Judge Junior DivisionII/Judicial Magistrate, Kaushambi in Complaint Case No.613 of 2022 (Dharm Singh Patel Vs. Sevalal), under Section 138 N.Ι. Act, Police Station- Charwa, District- Kaushambi.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that on 31.10.2022, a complaint stood lodged by the opposite party no. 2 with an allegation that with respect to discharge of a liability a cheque bearing No. 903800 of an amount of Rs. 5 lakhs dated 02.09.2022 was drawn by the applicant in favour of the opposite party no. 2 which on presentation in the bank, which came to be dishonoured, communication whereof was made on 07.09.2022 to the opposite party no. 2 thereafter a statutory demand notice was issued on 20.09.2022. However, it is alleged that the applicant with the connivance with the post-man got the said notice returned on several occasions and the complaint stood followed on 31.10.2022 and the applicant came to be summoned under Section 138 of the N.I. Act on 03.01.2025.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the summoning order cannot be sustained for the simple reason that the statutory demand notice issued on 20.09.2022 as at no point of time being served and he while while inviting attention in para-2 of the supplementary affidavit has submitted that there is no online consignment details of the said consignment no. RU56519640IN. He submits that information has been sought with respect to the consignment details but nothing has been furnished till date.

¶10

Learned AGA has opposed the application while contending that once the cheque had been drawn then there happens to be a statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Act would be there.

¶11

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records carefully.

¶12

The sole question which arises for determination in the present proceedings is to the extent of judicial intervention. Apparently, with respect to dishonour of a cheque of Rs. 5 lakhs, a statutory demand notice is alleged to have been issued on 20.09.2022 is further alleged to have been returned in connivance of the applicant with the postman. The question whether the demand notice was actually served or not is a question of trial as suffice would be that a clear recital is there regarding issuing of the statutory demand notice.

¶13

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ajeet Seeds Ltd. Vs. K. Gopala Krishnaiah, (2014) 12 SCC 685 , in paragraph-10 and 11 has held as under: -

¶14

"10. It is thus clear that Section 114 of the Evidence Act enables the Court to presume that in the common course of natural events, the communication would have been delivered at the address of the addressee.

¶15

Section 27 of the GC Act gives rise to a presumption that service of notice has been effected when it is sent to the correct address by registered post. It is not necessary to aver in the complaint that in spite of the return of the notice unserved, it is deemed to have been served or that the addressee is deemed to have knowledge of the notice. Unless and until the contrary is proved by the addressee, service of notice is deemed to have been effected at the time at which the letter would have been delivered in the ordinary course of business.

¶16

11. Applying the above conclusions to the facts of this case, it must be held that the High Court clearly erred in quashing the complaint on the ground that there was no recital in the complaint that the notice under Section 138 of the NI Act was served upon the accused. The High Court also erred in quashing the complaint on the ground that there was no proof either that the notice was served or it was returned unserved/unclaimed. That is a matter of evidence. We must mention that in C.C. Alavi Haji, this Court did not deviate from the view taken in Vinod Shivappa, but reiterated the view expressed therein with certain clarification. We have already quoted the relevant paragraphs from Vinod Shivappa where this Court has held that service of notice is a matter of evidence and proof and it would be premature at the stage of issuance of process to move the High Court for quashing of the proceeding under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. These observations are squarely attracted to the present case. The High Court?s reliance on an order passed by a two-Judge Bench in Shakti Travel & Tours is misplaced. The order in Shakti Travel & Tours does not give any idea about the factual matrix of that case. It does not advert to rival submissions. It cannot be said therefore that it lays down any law. In any case in C.C. Alavi Haji, to which we have made a reference, the three- Judge Bench has conclusively decided the issue. In our opinion, the judgment of the two-Judge Bench in Shakti Travel & Tours does not hold the field any more."

¶17

Accordingly, the interference is declined, the application stands disposed of .

¶18

Leaving it open to the applicant to raise legal and factual grounds while contesting the trial.

¶19

Order Date :- 19.8.2025 A. Prajapati

¶20

Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH KUMAR PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sevalal v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sevalal v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases